Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Putin's adventurism in the Ukraine, reminds me of the words written by the well known WWII historian, AJP Taylor. Taylor said of Mussolini and Hitler: " Hitler never wanted a war against England and America. Mussolini had never wanted a war against anyone stronger than Abyssinia or Greece. The Axis had moved cautiously forward in a series of small improvised wars until an unwelcome world war caught up with them." If only Putin was a student of history, he may recognize starting a war is easy, stopping it is much harder Furthermore, it is not usually ended by those who start it.

From Richard Haas & AM Slaughter: Former Director’s of Policy Planning directorate of State Department: There is a “primitive level of slogans and jingoistic ideological inspiration,” as quoted by Skidelsky.

Personally I’m glad that neither of the two are in *foggy bottom* advising Kerry.

In Syria, Assad has called a general election and will inevitably return to power – while +90% of chemical weapons have been removed by UN Agency under civil war conditions.

President Obama has more or less given up on Syria – after his failed demarche.

And it seems he’s no real or serious strategy to deal with Putin – let alone invite him to WH for a serious political dialogue.

Bottom line: Merkel must have made it absolutely clear to Obama that military action against Russia (or Putin) is not acceptable and will not resolve the crisis.

The "hot war" scenarios are too silly to be discussed. We should live with all of the fears we felt in the 50's and 60's?? To whose benefit...I think the corporate-military complex are the only ones to salivate at such talk.

Thank you, Professor Sachs - an excellent summary. In my own correspondence I have been emphasizing the domestic-policy roots of Putin's recent irredentism, but you summed those up very well, while putting them into a broader context. One point you make that I would quibble with, however, is that you underestimate Europe's dependence on Russian energy supplies. While Russian natural gas may be only about 10% of total EU energy consumption, there is also Russian oil, which is nearly as large in the energy basket, as well as coal. Cutting off Russian energy sales would lead to some cold months in Europe, as well as to a supply shock for the world economy. Hence the EU leaders will swallow a great deal of provocation first. Remember the politician's dilemma: any sanctions harsh enough to work, if they are painful to the country that imposes them, will be said in hindsight to have been excessive.

'Both Russia and the West have played fast and loose with international law in recent years. The West violated national sovereignty in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Russia is now playing the same card with shocking brazenness in its own neighborhood, often justifying its actions by pointing to Western precedents.'
What more needs to be said? Except the mention of the Victoria Nuland/Foundation for the Defense of Democracies alliance that subverted a legitimately elected government in Ukraine. Text of her leaked phone call available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
America is no innocent bystander, but a plotter and financier of that subversion, which Mr, Sachs carefully leaves out of his essay, as an inconvenient historical fact!
America does as it chooses and relies on public intellectuals like Mr. Sachs to rationalize and explain, with certain caveats, the rightness and inevitability of the American Singularity. While painting Putin as in the wrong and sanctions, not war, as the way forward. Mr. Sachs' attempt at propaganda is utterly weak, but sounds all the correct notes of ersatz political respectability, the stock and trade of American public intellectuals.
StephenKMackSD

You are so wrong in so many ways that I can write an entire book on the subject.

THe idea that the west will be calling the shots in the future as in the past is absurd if you look at recent economic developments. Power shifts to the east and the transatlantic community will need decades to reverse that trend. And YES it is much easier for russia to swap the EU with China as its major client for the most important product it supplies gas and oil. And NO the Chinese will be delighted to secure a long-term supply of energy at the expense of EU. The Idea that they will not do that, so that they don't risk its economic ties with the west is also absurd, because the west depends on China for both manufacturing its goods and financing its economy, not the other way around.

I think Jeffrey is asking the wrong q's. The political paradigm in which Putin is operating is not known - at least not overtly.
Unless and until Nato & West identify Putin's strategic framework of policy, it's going to be difficult to manage this relationship going forward. Putin is not afraid of sanctions - ie. they don't replace policy - if his goal is resurgence of (new) Russia.

Economic sanctions are not going to work over night. Isolation is going to wear down the Russian economy, like it did with the Soviet economy. Some sanctions however can have effects even in the short run. For example, a collapse of oil prices can finish Putin's regime in Russia.